Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Biomarkers, Gynaecological cancers, Haematological malignancies, Immunotherapy of cancer, New diagnostic tools, NSCLC - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, SCLC, Thoracic malignancies, Translational research

4656 - Immunotherapy In The Immunodeficient– A Treatment Paradox?

Date

20 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Biomarkers, Gynaecological cancers, Haematological malignancies, Immunotherapy of cancer, New diagnostic tools, NSCLC - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, SCLC, Thoracic malignancies, Translational research

Topics

Targeted Therapy

Tumour Site

Presenters

Nicola Campbell

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii400-viii441. 10.1093/annonc/mdy288

Authors

N.J. Campbell1, J. Longley1, A. Pascalis2, J. Bennett3, M. Remer1, R. Stone1, D. Muller1, I. Karydis1, O. Donnelly4, M. Wheater1, C. Ottensmeier1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Southampton General Hospital Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, SO16 6YD - Southampton/GB
  • 2 Medical Oncology, Institute of Cancer Research, SM2 - London/GB
  • 3 Southampton Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, University of Southampton, SO16 - Southampton/GB
  • 4 Clinical Oncology Department - Level B, Southampton General Hospital Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, SO16 6YD - Southampton/GB
More

Resources

Abstract 4656

Background

Patients with immunodeficiency are typically excluded from trials involving Immunotherapy, however they are at increased risk of developing malignancy. There is currently a lack of evidence to guide clinicians making difficult decisions in this cohort who have a theoretical risk of being unable to mount an adequate immune response.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with Metastatic Melanoma treated with either single or dual immunotherapy regimes at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust were identified through our electronic chemotherapy prescribing system. Those with a background of immunosuppressive states were analysed including high intensity chemotherapy or stem cell transplant for prior malignancy and HIV.

Results

A total of 124 patients received Pembrolizumab monotherapy and 47 patients received Iplimumab with Nivolumab. Six patients were considered immunodeficient, including three patients treated with curative intent with intensive chemotherapy for prior lymphoma, one patient with HIV with undetectable viral load, one patient continuing on Ibrutinib treatment for Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma and one patient under a watch and wait approach for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia. All patients in this group had any grade treatment related toxicity, with five experiencing severe grade 3-4 toxicity requiring hospitalisation. With a median follow up of 16.5 months no patients had reactivation of previous malignancy. Four out of six patients have had a complete radiological response and two patients had disease progression.

Conclusions

In our cohort the majority of patients had a significant response to immunotherapy with toxicity managed without any long-term comorbidity. These patients were able to mount an anti-tumour immune response despite concurrent immunodeficiency and experienced an increased incidence of toxicity when compared with other patients treated at our centre. Despite the limitations of a small retrospective series our data would support offering immunotherapy even in the context of apparent immunodeficient states.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

University Hospitals Southampton.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

J. Longley: ESMO Travel Grant. I. Karydis: Travel, accommodations, expenses: Delcath Systems. M. Wheater: Consulting or advisory role: Roche, Novartis, MSD, Healthcare at Home; Travel, accommodations, expenses: MSD, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Delcath Systems; Research funding: Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, MSD, Aveo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech AG, Serametrix, Touchlight Genetics, Delcath Systems. C. Ottensmeier: Consulting or advisory role: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Immatics; Travel, accommodations, expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Delcath Systems; Research funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Verastem, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Inovio Pharmaceuticals, BioNTech AG, Serametrix, Touchlight Genetics, Delcath Systems. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.